Nikon Z7 Review

Nikon Z7 Review

The Nikon Z7 is the company's most well-rounded camera to date: it's as well spec'd and suited for video capture as it is for stills, and the quality of both is impressive. The Z7's design offers an experience that will be familiar to existing Nikon DSLR shooters, but in a smaller, lighter body, built around the all-new Nikon Z-mount.

This is Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless camera: a 4K-capable machine which features a variant of the D850's 46MP BSI CMOS sensor, but with the addition of on-sensor phase detection AF pixels and mechanical stabilization. From our testing the only area where the Z7 comes up a little short is autofocus reliability and usability - something at which Nikon's DSLRs have long excelled.

Key features:

45.7MP full-frame BSI-CMOS sensor with on-sensor phase detection

In-body 5-axis image stabilization (rated to 5EV)

493 PDAF points with 90% horizontal and vertical coverage of the frame

The Nikon Z7 is available now for a body-only price of $3400. It is also available kitted with the 24-70mm F4 S lens for $4000 (many retailers are offering additional kits with the 'F to Z adapter' for about $150 more).

What's new and how it compares

The Z7 isn't just a D850 without a mirror: we look at the key additions and what the Z7 offers.

Comments

Your scoring system is in dire need of fixing. Like it's 89% but Silver? How does this even compute? Either remove the awards or throw away the percentage scale. Z7 is really good (Silver), but no, it's not on par with another 89% cameras like A7III, sorry.

Review is good as always though, and Z7 is indeed a good first effort albeit with very limited native lens options. Tried it the other week on a event, it was surprisingly competent MILC in many areas.

How many days or weeks have you worked with the Z7 so far, how many pictures did you take, what pictures, etc? Just curious as you think you know better than DPR and anybody else owning and actually USING this camera to a very high extent?

You don't need weeks to understand that FPS, AF, tracking and buffer sucks.

And they do, apparently. We were shooting a 3-day student performance competition with a bunch of gear supplied partly by the university (Z7), and our A7RII was on par or way better at almost every occasion where AF and buffer are a must. Z7 IQ was fantastic, yes, but the speed of this camera is on par with mk1 Sony bodies sometimes, if I'm honest.

The camera shines in pretty much all categories, so it gets a high overall score. Still, there is that impression that one can't help but get, which is that there is obvious room for improvement . With that I do not mean future technology, but things that could have been implemented in this generation of the camera. Hence, silver makes sense.

I totally agree, its crazy how great the site and the thought put into every detail in the reviews only to pair it with a beyond terrible rating system.

I know they said they're working on it but they either need to get rid of the score and only use the medals, or put more thought into making the grading system consistent. As of right now it seems like they're just throwing out a number and expecting every one to consider the medals.

Honestly who really cares what DPR rates any of these cameras. Read the review and base your own assessment on your own needs. I am not a video shooter so a camera with poor video performance but great stills operation could earn a gold award based on my needs. I just use these reviews to form my own opinion based on information supplied.

I dont believe you a single word. I am pretty sure, you are just an insecure Sony user like 99% of the measurebaters here in this forum. Anyway, there is absolutelly nothing at all, zero, that holds a good photog back to make the best possible photos in the world with the Z7. If you cant do it, it is you, not the Z7, period. Comparing the Z7 with the first gen super crappy Sony A7R just shows how clueless you are. 100% certainly, you never even saw a Z7 in reality, let a lone touched it.

Like any system, certain settings work better than others. Stick with the ones that work best with what you are doing.

If I were usually shooting sports I'd get a D850 and use all the great sports lenses companies like Sony don't have. The best part is they are virtually fully compatible with the Z system (no stupid 2.5 FPS limit like Sony).No matter when it comes to sports and adapted sports lenses, Nikon blows away Sony. 2.5 FPS?? LOL!!!!

Come on, guys. 89% for a camera with significant limitations in major aspects for the segment of cameras it is tested in? That's up to 6 to 8 percent too much.I appreciate your mostly obejctively reviews - in many cases only up to conclusions page, because you seem to loose that important behaviour when summing up.You really should consider some static rules and values for downrating scores related to major aspects.

I read your nonsense-list of cherry-picked points, often personal preference. It is mostly based on pure specs alone. You don't subtract the one list from the other and determine a camera a success if the difference is positive and negative otherwise. It is not about those specs when you have a pro shoot. I need top-notch C-AF. The A9, A73 and A7r3 deliver that, didn't let me down at weddings. I need two card slots. I need good battery life. All that paired with high IQ. The Nikon isn't there yet, clearly so. It is a great landscape or stills image camera in my opinion. Having a few MP more here, a few dots resolution more on the lcd is irrelevant. It will improve with the next iteration. But so will Sony, they don't stand still and could see and study the reaction of the community wrt to the Z7, EOS R.

@Bob. You clearly have no clue. All clients look at Instagram, the homepage and decide based on the images. They don't care if the photogs use a D5 or 1dxii (our A9 don't have to hide, however, I know since I used pro Nikon and Canon bodies before. You obviously don't). We photographers know what gets us the shot. And I know that AF-C is important to me. The latest Sonys deliver. When I tested the Z7, I wasn't convinced. This review and many other impressions I read confirm my impression ("One constant frustration we observed while field testing the Z7 is the camera's tendency to hunt in AF-C when shooting in very low light or back-lit subjects.". Thats a no-go on the dance floor in very dim light). All that doesn't mean that the Z7 isn't a very good camera. It just lacks in a very important area for me. Is that so difficult to accept for you?24mm at f4, come on, calculate the DOF man.

@HFLM ok I needed to mention that for my kind of interest in subject its only matter of quality of image. You being a wedding photographer have rightly other issues to think of. But me not interested either of wedding photography or action photos

@BBT Actually considering dpreview reviews the A7RIII is some steps behind both the mentioned Nikon cameras (in any case having that budget it would be difficult for me to choose between these 3 considering the image quality) . Anyway I'm very satisfied with my K5 and the only upgrade will be to a K1 😎!

@HFLM ok folks the 3 cameras are par regarding image quality (before went wrongly for the A7III instead for the A7RIII). So the A7RIII is surely a great choice. At this point if I had the money the choice would be very very difficult.

So good. As a Canon user I can't wait to try the Z. I think this will be a great travel buddy with the 35 & 50 1.8 Thats all I need for this purpose. Nikon did it right from the beginning. IBIS, great sensor, not too big lenses. Maybe the Z-system can replace my DSLR equipment one day. Canon has to make a better R body to keep me in long-term.

No question the images are excellent and that's what counts. However, considering the rather significant things in the "What we don't [like]" column, this camera would get an 84% score *at best* if it were made by Canon. Somehow Nikon gets a pass on rather significant shortcomings.

The percentage scoring system has always been fake and misleading in that it's not a percentage of *anything*. There is no 100% standard, no reference.

I don't think that aspects related to personal, e.g. grip/ergonomics/menu, should be considered to calculate score... if the score comprehends those aspects then it could mislead who consults DPReview to understand which cameras take into considerations... one could believe that 89%, as in this case, is mostly related to the image quality as a whole package and the "physical" features, but could be a big disappointment 'cos those "personal" aspects doesn't match the experience of the buyer/reader.

IMO, scoring should be as objective as possible, leaving out all the personal impression 'bout things that are not numerable.

You've got a point, but the most important thing about a review like this is that you can get a "feel" about the camera, so it is important that they mention as many aspects as possible. Best is to just ignore the percentage score.

Indeed, it's better, if in hurry, to read the pro & cons listed in the conclusion page... BTW, DPReview should really reconsider its score methodology 'cos as for now it's just confusing, silver w/ high score is a step lower than a gold w/ low score... I know that "rebuild" score's assignment should involve all the previous reviews but I still think it be better to cut off this method now than continuing this confusion.

One issue I found with Z7 is auto crop when attaching crop lenses. I don’t understand it. Sony gives you a chance to force using crop lenses in full frame mode. Nikon’s own DSLRS give you capacity to choose if you want use lenses in crop or full frame mode. Yet, Nikon has this option in a menu that cannot be selected, so they obviously thought about but turned this feature off. You cannot choose on Z7. If you mount a crop lens, it will be immediately switched to crop mode without options.

If you ask why anyone would want to use crop lenses on full frame body in full frame mode, there are plenty of reasons. For example Tamron 10-24 II covers full frame without vignette starting about 14/15mm. For someone who uses UWA only occasionally, this $500 lens may work. Other DX lenses like 35 1.8G DX also works good on full frame in certain situations.

Tried Z7 + 24-70 at crowded convention center EXPO. An M43 shooter for more than 10 years, this is the first FF camera I felt I might buy. A half pound heavier than my OMD EM-1 and 12-40PRO, I don't mind because the Z7 is the most comfortable body I ever handled.

I found ergonomics great, build quality excellent & camera very capable of finding, locking on & following faces in a very crowded convention center. Real world, not a lab test or spec competition designed to find the limits which do not matter. I felt the camera is fantastic. EVF and LCD are over the top great, focus instant.

Needs native telephoto lenses before I'll consider switching over but the big sensor is appealing for the less noise and a stop of light. I will not buy an adaptor & obsolete DSLR lenses. A shame they didn't bring this camera out 1-2 years ago with a lower resolution EVF and LCD. They will pay a price for it. I'd be angry if I recently invested in a Nikon DSLR.

Oskar P : If I owned Nikon DSLR lenses no problem. Won't buy them with adaptor at 2018 prices. If Z is successful - I predict it will be, they can be purchased at 1/3 or less of current prices in 3 years, as DSLR market shrinks & their are fewer buyers for them.

I'm shooting EM-1, happy, in no hurry. I have not given up on the format & see only incremental gain not worth the cost of switching today. I shoot a lot between 80 & 420mm (FF format). I can buy f/5.6 FF lenses, match size weight of M43 PRO lenses for same FL, but what I gain in sensor, I lose in lens so no great benefit.

If I was willing to carry bigger, heavier lenses I could beat the system I use handily with f/2.8 FF lenses, but I am not capable or willing to carry lenses that weigh 3-7lbs each, are difficult to travel or hike with, & I'm not willing to spend $5,000 - $15,000 for the pain & suffering. It would take all the fun out of photography. At standard FL, Z is more appealing where size/weigh delta is smaller.

MShot, I can almost guarantee you that the DSLR lenses wil not be 1/3 or less of their current prices in three years' time, no matter how successful the Z-series will prove to be. Good lenses keep their value surprisingly well, no matter the mount.

"The 350+ Nikon lenses work as if they were native. There is virtually no difference besides the adapter."

No. 260+ of those lose AF. The other 90 or so lose 2 axes of stabilization. And the longer the lens is, the more AF hunting pops up. Not even close to native. Just because Nikon wants to hype their gear up like in their teasers doesn't mean it's true. Real life tests here and on other sites have proven that.

Nikon has a problem with only three native Z lenses, all under 70mm. They have to get people to use the DSLR lenses. I don't think new customers will buy DSLR lenses or photographers switch systems until they have more native lenses, and Nikon knows this. They are telling DSLR customers to buy an adaptor (please - you can use this body). I think over the next three years demand for DSLR lenses will decline as new lenses will be available that do magical things with the new wide, short flange and prices for DSLR lenses will plummet. I would not want to buy them today for use for a few years on a DSLR or current or future use on a Z with an adaptor. I have MF film camera lenses that are exquisite I use with an adaptor, very high quality glass I bought a few years ago but for under $100 a lens for something that would cost $500-800 new if made today. Quality OLY 4/3 lenses are 10-20% of MSRP and only ten years old. Once the system fades the price of the lenses fades with them.

What does DPR say about it?"Essentially, anything with its own focus motor will work and will be compatible with ALL the camera's functions.... we mounted the AF-S Nikkor 35mm F1.8 to the adapter and were impressed by the performance."

I do everything DPR tells me to do. No, I don't. I do what works for me. Z design lenses will be smaller and lighter. They are. The new big thin mount will enable Nikon to design lenses that do things that can't be don't with the F mount. So says DPR, so maybe they have that right. Mirrorless lenses are designed to do things that can't be done with DSLRs. They will be different. Pick one up and see it now. Use F mount lenses if you have them. If not, don't invest in old technology at 2018 prices. Let them flesh out the Z lens product line and F mount lens price to plummet when nobody is buying them. They will. I'll buy a Z6 when they have the native lenses I need. I have no DSLR lenses for it and won't buy them.

It's reasonable. Other than auto area AF and eye AF, the Nikon is better in almost every other aspect. I wouldn't be surprised if the Z7's score will be updated to at least 83% if Nikon updates their firmware to match the D850's AF and usability but Nikon wouldn't because it will eat their D5 sales that cost 2x the price.

So, Sony a7 mk 3 is an older camera and better in most ways but the Nikon Z7 gets 89 % too...Once again I'm baffled by the scoring logic.

Or am I still not getting this Canikon formula at DPReview? (where you have to add +5 % to keep them happy)

Many things you lift up as advantages for the Nikon (and Canon alike in reviews on their cameras) are matter of taste (ergonomics, menus, feelings, etc), but when it comes to tangible and measurable attributes Sony beats the competition hands down. And very little attention is given to this fact.I find that very interesting indeed...

@Tieu Ngao, I understand you looking through wrong glasses. Agree to ergonomics, but menu/look&feel are far lower in significance than you are indicating. May be valid for you personally, but photographical feature set is far mor important to my mind.

Depends. Scaled down to match, they should be similar. Cropped in, the Z 7 will be much noisier, while the A7 III will have less resolution. Both have their ups and downs, and those cancel each other out, so scoring should be in the same neighborhood.

Tried it at an EXPO this weekend and found the AF EXCELLENT. It doesn't have to have 3-D AF if you don't need it. Most people = millions of photographers don't have, don't need it, and make great photos without it. They need more native lenses. I won't buy DSLR lenses and an adaptor. These lenses will be considered obsolete in three years and the value will plummet. If I bought a Nikon DSLR in the last 12 months I'd be unhappy. They could have brought out a camera nearly as capable 1-2 years ago and they are going to pay a price for missing it. They are very late.

Foto64 : Less capable cameras are used successfully for sports. It may not be the worlds best for it, but from what I found from trying it I could use it for sports. It can work for that without winning a lab test. You don't need the world's best sports camera. You just need one that is good enough.

BlueBomberTurbo; Are you serious? You haven't picked up this camera. I tracked faces in a crowded convention center last weekend. It stayed with them when people passed between us. Maybe you can't hold the shutter down and take 100 shots of basketball or baseball and guarantee a money shot - or maybe you can. Forget the reviews and lab tests for a minute that try to find the camera that is 1% better than the rest because they have to declare a winner, and try it in the real world. You can't take photos of dogs or kids with this? Really? If they are as fast as Marvel Comic super heroes maybe. If normal kids and dogs, no problem. A lessor camera can do it. Does do it.

That's wonderful. When the shutter closes to take a photo, tracking drops off the face of the earth. This isn't 1% worse than the competition. It's closer to 75% worse, as even the competition's significantly cheaper basic camera (A7 III) can be used for sports without breaking a sweat. And guess what: when you're up close, AF has to work a lot harder, due to shallower DOF. That makes shooting kids and dogs with anything but single shot a gamble at best. They both move erratically, forward and back, which presents a nightmare for an AF system. And yes, some lesser DSLRs and mirroless can do it fine, because they have better AF systems than in the Z7.

First generation teething issues should not be coddled. Manufacturers don't need to feel good about themselves to get better.

I took the Z7 it out a second time today. Prefer it over the SONY by far. Looks / feels like a PRO camera. Quality = worth the money. It performs great. No camera is 3X better at anything. Kids, dogs, cats. Why do I care about something I have no need for? Don't shoot them running around but could, with any camera. Can do that with an iPhone. Don't need tracking & 100 similar shots. Need one great one. Seems to me from trying it, Z7 can do it.

Tried it with adaptor and Nikon 100-400. Very nice. Native version will be better. Tracking only one aspect of body. You know SONY or just read reviews & spec sheets? Tried Z7 for photography you do? I proved it can do everything I want by doing it. That's everything I need to know. I don't care what other people think I should buy or what they buy. I only care about what works for me. I like this camera better than any I tried this year. It's a 10 year keeper.

👏🏻- well done & as expected! I believe this is the FFM that can steal the market right now!

But, and there is a big BUT: DPR - if, in your upcoming review, you will criticize too much the EOS R in the ergonomics section, that will show, at least for me, that your old habits (of criticizing Canon for some highly debatable matters - not just my opinion) die hard. You did a very good job with the article concerning ways to improve the EOS R, and I hope some of the lazy Canon executives will read it - then also I hope objectivity will be kept.

To be clear: when you are right, you are right (that includes the undeniable fact that, unlike Nikon, Canon released an “unfinished / unpolished” camera), but hyperjustification with minor and arguable facts, which is to confirm first to yourselves that you are right (and, OK, to give collateral joy to fanboys from various camps, mostly Sony), it is not necessary. Keep it up with good journalism!

The Nikon booth at a camera expo this weekend looked like a funeral home, the reps disgusted, dejected. Few people interested in their equipment. All the other vendors were busy except Canon, 3 deep in people waiting to talk to them and handle the cameras. They need more native lenses and the Z6. They had only a Z7, too expensive for most people, and few people need more than 24MP.

From my personal experience with it, I love the Z7, would buy a Z6 if they had more lenses. I will not buy an adaptor and DSLR lenses that will be worthless in 3 years when the native Z lens selection is fleshed out and most new camera sales will be mirrorless.

I did not like the Canon R as well. It felt more like a down sized DSLR which they already have. The Z7 feels like something else. I prefer it.

I tried it at a busy convention center and didn't find it spotty at all. Pay less attention to lab and expert tests designed to find the limits and more attention to real world photography experience. I thought the AF performance was excellent. A wonderful camera. I'd love to have a Z6 when they have more native lenses.

@Mshot: You posted that a few times already. I tried it, too at Photokina. Compared to what I am used to, I found AF to be dissappointingly slow especially in C-AF. Single shot AF is nothing special anymore, but C-AF separates the cam from being useful for event work. I cannot understand that rating either.

This is a question for Dpreview editors. Dan Watson in his review of Z6 on YouTube indicates that Z6 (and I assume Z7 since they are so similar) stops down all lenses to autofocus at F5.6. Have you confirmed or denied this fact???? I see nothing in your review on this. If that’s true, that’s huge. That can clearly explain issues with AF in low light. This is very different to how Sony and (I assume since it is rated as EV-6 at F1.2 so aperture makes a difference) Canon R focuses.

The Nikon's will step down to 5.6 at most depending on the shooting aperture. If you shoot at f stops wider than that the camera doesn't stop down (e.g. stays at f4 or f2.8). If you shoot at say f8, the camera stops down to f5.6 to focus and then further constricts to f8 to take the shot. This is different from a DSLR where all focusing is done at widest aperture. Hopefully that clarifies your confusion.

Thanks for the very comprehensive review. My photography is about 75% Landscape/travel and 25% Wildlife/BIF. I am not a professional so critical results are not always necessary. Would the z7 AFC be good enough for casual BIF/Wildlife is is the keeper rate that bad?

LOL. Why would you want to switch from the 5D mark IV to the Z7? The loss in glass changeover costs alone is crazy. As all of the Nikon BIF shooters, and virtually every single one of them will tell you the Z7 is not good for that.

As far as Canon lenses, the OP at least has the 28 and 40mm Canon pancakes. He should buy those and be happy for his landscapes/travel

Thousands of great BIF photos on this site were taken with cameras that don't have AF as capable.

Lots of photographers, some BIF photographers bought mirrorless systems, even with crop sensors because they are easier to hand hold, and you don't need a Sherpa to hike long distances or travel with them.

Some added the systems, some traded in DSLRs and $5,000 to $15,000 glass for $2,500 glass and are happy with the transition. You can read it in the forums.

In three years the value of DSLR glass will plummet. Do it now and save a lot of money.

Studio scenes are not really ideal for looking at differences between cameras of roughly the same price range and generation. Look at real world images at normal viewing distances and you can discern differences in dynamic range, tonal transitions, DOF transitions and noise at equivalent FOV and DOF. For me, the X1D betters the z7, a7riii and gfx.

@multisystem - yes, but I tend not to look at the real world shots because they're all taken at separate times by separate people. Somehow, we need a person to test cameras against each other in real world situations AND while exploiting each to it's fullest.

It's Nikon's way of discouraging pro sports shooters from migrating to a $3400 camera in a Z7 from a $6,500 one in a D5.

Tought but wise decision from Nikon. They'll let Sony take the crown but protect their crown jewels in pro shooting. As soon as the pro MILC to replace the D5 is ready, that's when they will push the all out attack.

It is an entirely new system. No way they can fill every slot from day one. The more sports related cameras are coming but first they will build these more mass market cameras. That is where the real money is.

BillyBob - I've seen your wonderful motorsports images & love them. I tried a Z7 this weekend. I'm sure you would get the same results with it, carry a lot less weight, stabilize every lens you mount on it. The EVF & LCD are over the top great. For holding the shutter down for 100 shots in a basketball game to pick the perfect money shot maybe no, auto racing no problem. Race cars are not that erratic or fast. You don't need the worlds best AF system. If you did there would be no PRO Canon shooters & no amateur SONY or M43 shooters but there are millions of them & they are happy with their gear. For road race panning & head-on shots at 1/500 no problem. You can do it with a CDAF AF system. Z7 tracks faces in crowded convention centers. I tried it. Much harder than race cars moving in predictable arcs & vectors. Shutter lag is so low its imperceivable. You need a lab test to measure it. No way the delta matters in the real world. AF seems instant, definitely fast enough for car racing.

MShot - Thank you for the comments. You experience with the Z7 is very encouraging. I have already convinced myself the that D850 is the last DSLR I will be buying. I am looking forward to more motorsports shooters to provide feedback on the mirrorless Nikons. I am assuming Nikon will be releasing a more sports oriented mirrorless by the end of 2019. I am in no rush for mirorless. I am happy to wait with Nikon.

You already own the lenses you need, but the Z mount is amazing. Its gigantic diameter and flat flange will enable Nikon to design new lenses with capability I can't guess, but could be very appealing. It has huge potential but not for DSLR lenses. If it were me, I would wait for native Z telephoto lenses since you are happy with the D850. I would keep using the D850 rather than adapt lenses to a Z7. For you there is no benefit to that, a little smaller, lighter kit only. The benefits of mirrorless for in-camera apps and processing go way beyond less size and weight. You will be amazed at the tech you will gain when you lose the mirror.

Right now, there are only 2 other cameras in the category: A9 and A7R III. Scoring is heavily weighed on image quality, so this slots in right behind the A7R III. Not the best scoring method, as usability is just as important as the output, if not more.

gold is any camera that deserves it ....firmware can deeply ameliorate the few failings seen...also it isn't a first gen ...nikon has been developing on sensor focus for years ...this is evolution drawing on decades of ilc brilliance

The imaging resource IQ from the Z6 is disappointing. Not sure if they stuck on a super high anti-aliasing filter to destroy enough IQ to justify the Z7's price, or if imaging resource just got a bad copy. For Nikon's sake, let's hope its the later.

I'd be very surprised if Z6 got a gold, as it shares most of the Z7's shortcomings, and can't match it in other areas. There are tradeoffs between the two, but yes, the pricing for the Z6 is much more attractive.

Where is the measurement for shutter lag. This is the most important aspect for professional photographer.9fps means nothing if we don't know this burst how many milliseconds need to start from the time you press the button.

The initial teaser campaign certainly helped, despite some moaners. The problem Nikon has(d) is that the reality doesn’t quite match up to the hype - but they must have known that, mustn’t they and risked it in favour of ‘awareness’!?I think the review is fair and hopefully Nikon will address the issues - I had a play with a Z7 and it handles magnificently (subjective, I know) so I want to love the Z6 when it comes out!

3) changes in cover glass of the Z7’s sensor (~1.1mm) is about half a thick as the D850 (~2.5) according to KolariVision teardown , which is resulting in a reduction of performances again when adapting F Mount lenses.

YairT,In kolarvision teardown report I can read this :"Another unique aspect: the cover glass of the Z7’s sensor is about half a thick as the Sony’s, coming in at 1.1mm. This means the Nikon will have better performance with adapted lenses right out of the box"Better performance is not "reduction of performance" like you said...

Yairt,When you look at this diagram : https://diglloyd.com/blog/2018/20181027_1405-ZeissDSLRLenses-on-mirrorless.htmlit looks to me that DIGLLOYD says contradictory things. The diagram clearly shows that, without a glass, the red, blue and green rays converge on the same plane, while they converge on different planes when there is a glass. So, as kolarvision says, the thinner is the glass, the better... And this is just obvious, at least for me. When it is thinner, it is closer to none...

So you have to keep switching back and fort between electronic and mechanical at a moment's notice because of issues on both ends of the shutter speed spectrum? Not very convincing for something that's considered to be a finished product...

Very nice review. For all the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about how inadequate so much of this camera is compared to the very best peers (and even its older sibling the D850), and about youtuber coverage of the camera, it certainly seems like a terrific camera that can do remarkably in a huge array of shooting situations. I'm excited for my Z6.

I like the breadth and depth of the review, and some of the minor humor too.

Good job DPR. Now onto the forum where I'm sure there are people SO ANGRY ABOUT EVERYTHING.

The comments regarding the Z7's liveview refresh rate in 5.5fps burst was very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to make a video about it.

Would it be too much to ask for a systematisation of liveview evaluation in various areas of performance (lag vs. reality, in single shot or at x fps, refresh rate, low light behaviour and image quality, etc.), in the same way that, let's say, noise performance is evaluated ? I think this would be useful since mirrorless cameras will increasingly multiply, including with the addition of high performance models, and these extremely important details for operational quality are never ever mentioned in specification lists.

Another question : has DPreview tested the full electronic shutter in 12bit raw instead of 14bit ? Is the scan time reduced at 12bit ?

My iPhone X can't touch the IQ of my Z7 unless you are comparing thumbnail images. I have some shots on my iMac 5K monitor from my Z7 that just blow me away in sharpness, details, and color. Very good noise performance. Better than the 30MP EOS R I got to try out for a few days.

89% for a camera that doesn't AF in adverse conditions? I think that's a bit much. It does have IBIS though. I'd rather have a camera that can focus in the dark without IBIS, than a camera that has IBIS, but it is useless if you cannot AF. In good light you don't need IBIS.

I found the AF of the Z7 to work quite well in lower light. You do have to put up with the green AF illuminator light though. What I found interesting is that you can MF in lower light really easily too. Hopefully this is something Nikon can improve a little via firmware. But no... its not a D500 in lower light.

I went from the D850 to Sony A73. Moving from the D850 to Z7 to me would make no sense. I am not opposed to a move back to Nikon if it makes sense to me. With the A73 I feel I have not missed anything vs the D750 or D850. This is paired with F 4.0 Sony lenses and Batis Primes. Further it would not make sense to move from a D850 or D750 with fast Nikon glass just to go with Sony no benefit to swap a Nikon 24-70 VR for a Sony GM version etc

The D850 was the last camera I thought I would even own thats how good it is. I was really waiting to see what mirrorless could do. The camera dealer where I bought my A73 told me not to buy the Sony camera but to wait for the Nikon mirrorless to be sure. I had a feeling they were not right. Mainly I know enough that a new camera system with a new lens mount needs new lenses. Makes no sense at what Nikon charges for a z6 or z7 to switch from a D750/D850 at this stage. I am sure the Nikon Z6s and Z7s wont be out for a couple years but that does not resolve today. I was not looking forward to buying the Sony A73 at all! Us Nikon users know what to expect and testing a camera for the first time in the field is not advised. I bought the A73, and then sold the D850 and all the nikon gear I had. For the most part the camera bag has gotten smaller

Blue, there isn't any better AF system than the Multicam 20k, , especially not in your Playstation camerasAs for the trolling, as you make a living of it, has your Sony bosses not reprimanded you for the lame trolling?

Last I read DSLRs account for most changeable lens cameras. Over 60% I believe. Maybe that will drop to 45 or 50% now, So Canon and Nikon and a little Pentax will share half. The Z cameras appear very capable. With the strong Nikon reputation and fan base, combined with the 400 usable lenses, Nikon has done a great job.

Come to think of it, even though DSLRs still make up half, it is much less competitive. The best strategy is to make DSLRs and mirrorless. It will remain that way for a long while.

DSLR share is plummeting, and has been for a while. Once Canikon come out with a reasonable mirrorless offering, expect DSLRs to finally drop below mirrorless. Then again, if it takes too long, mirrorless will do it without Canikon FF help. ;)

In summary, DSLR is dead. The people that still prefer DSLRs will now start sounding like the hippies that shoot film.Ill get that train rolling: Shooting Film err DSLRs is More Challenging and Rewarding, DSLRs makes you appreciate the "Origins" of photography, weddings lost that special character of non stop shutter clicks, simulated mirror blackout on current high tech cameras is just not the same as classic DSLRs, the heft of DSLRs give you more appreciation for the results, 43% of people still think huge cameras look more professional, remembering the mirror and why it was so important back in 2008, how sending in my DSLR to get the mirror box replaced was expensive but rewarding - makes you appreciate the limited lifetime of the camera. Time to be nostalgic, in memory of the DSLR.

Problem is, this camera can't replace a DSLR if you need good AF. Even Nikon's basic camera, a D3500, walks circles around the Z 7 in AF tracking. Only Sony and possibly Canon (waiting on review), can stand in for the performance of a DSLR. I wouldn't have switched from Nikon if I knew I was losing out on AF performance, as it's probably the most important thing to me in a camera.

I would not overgeneralize that the DSLR is "dead", I do think the D850 will be the last DSLR that merits 'the best camera for general shooting' designation. Sure, improved versions of it and its Canon rival will follow since the Japanese are the best in incremental continuous improvement but most of their investment money is now going to be on mirrorless especially as Nikon is one generation and Canon is two generations behind Sony in mirrorless and they need to catch up. Furthermore, HQ is looking at the data and see a flat over-all camera market with growing mirrorless and declining DSLR sales so guess where the money will be going.

It is stupid to attack dSLRs. Canon and Nikon offer an easy path to ML if you want it. My next camera could be a dSLR or ML and I do not see why somebody like you should get too excited about it. It would not be much different that any other upgrade I have made so far.

BTW, I have owned a bunch of film SLRs and dSLRs and I have never had to have a mirror box replaced. I own a ML camera as well.

- No OVF no buy!- Mirrorless is so pointless, no smaller than a DSLR! - Battery life is so much worse than a DSLR! - These tiny thing feel like toys! - It’s so unbalanced my dainty hands can barely hold it!

And so on. (As expected) as soon as Canon and Nikon launched their FF mirrorless cameras fanboys would be onto the benefits like a rash. Benefits they saw no benefit to until their loyal love lorn brand deigned them worthy to have. Now it’s all roses and glitter (or something).

I think the more relevant question is how it got 89 % to begin with?Based on the contents of this review I would have guessed a low 80, 85 tops. Unless you give matters of taste (ergonomics, menus and emotion (brand loyalty)) very much emphasis...

@BlueBomberTurboThe first time I've tested the Fuji XT 2 it had the 1.2 firmware and it's AF speed, precision and performance was an absolutely uninspiring. After a while I've shot with the same XT 2 with firmware 4.2 and it was a night and day difference, like I was shooting with a totally different camera altogether.

I bet if Nikon desires they can vastly improve AF performance via a firmware update. I just hope for their sake they don't make the wrong choice of dressing those problems only in the next Z models.

I really hope you are right!I like most things about the new Z cameras, I can even get over the single card slot thing, but the current AF performance on the Z is a deal breaker for me. If they decide to improve it in the future then I will gladly spend money on their now system.

I don't see how Nikon could make a significant hardware update to these models in less than two years (I don't see them releasing a "Z710" just for a second card slot). They've put quite a lot in these cameras and the hardware seems quite OK. The sensors seem state of the art at their respective price point and resolution figures, for example. So for once I'm not totally doubtful that we'll see somewhat significant firmware updates for these models as it might be the only way for Nikon to quickly catch up where they're deficient.

Nikon has released firmware version 2.0 for its full-frame Z6 and Z7 mirrorless cameras, and its all about autofocus. The update adds Eye AF, improves performance in low light, and allows for full-time auto-exposure subject tracking at 12 fps.

We've been shooting with Nikon's compact ultra-wide zoom, the 14-30mm F4. It's one of the first few native lenses available for Nikon's full-frame mirrorless system, and as a bonus supports screw-in filters – a rarity for this kind of lens.

Nikon has announced more details of firmware in development for the Z6 and Z7. As previously reported, firmware is being planned that will add Eye-detection AF, CFexpress support and Raw video over HDMI.

Latest in-depth reviews

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

The HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW is a high quality standard prime lens for Ricoh's full-frame Pentax DSLRs. Ricoh has made great claims about its pro-grade construction and excellent sharpness – how does it stack up?

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.